Bank Robbery @ Kroger store

[hheremtp]

This thread brings to mind the signature line of one of our members:

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

It's the attitude of "It's not me or mine so why do I care?" that leads to people walking past a person that has been hit by a car; and not even caring enough to pull the cell phone out of their pocket and call for an ambulance.

To those of you that advocate for doing nothing and being a "good wittiness" I ask you this:

If it was your Wife, daughter, son, father, mother etc. that had a gun shoved in their face and were not in a position to be able to defend themselves. Would you want the CHLer that just happened to be there to say to themselves; "it's not my family member so why should I care?" and be a "good wittiness" to their murder. How would you feel/react to hear that there was someone who could have stopped it but did not? I dare say that most of us would be outraged at the fact.

[dicion]

If it was your Wife, daughter, son, father, mother etc. that had a gun shoved in their face and were not in a position to be able to defend themselves. Would you want the CHLer that just happened to be there to say to themselves; "it's not my family member so why should I care?" and be a "good wittiness" to their murder. How would you feel/react to hear that there was someone who could have stopped it but did not? I dare say that most of us would be outraged at the fact.

If that someone who did not stop chose to do so because attempting to do so would have put themselves and/or their family at greater risk, then I would understand.
They were looking out for the safety of their loved ones first. I sure as heck wouldn't like it, but I would understand why they did not, and I would not fault them for their (in)action.
Then again, I am a very forgiving person. However, if they did so for nothing but contempt, well, I cannot say on this forum how I would feel.

Unlike Police and Military, CHL'ers are not volunteering their lives on the line for their fellow man. We do not give an oath to protect the people, uphold the constitution or anything like that.

That being said, at one time, I DID give such an oath, when I joined the military.

Personally, *I* would be hard pressed to NOT take action, if I believed there were better-than-not odds of stopping the guy and preventing him from taking further lives, of either my family or of others, even possibly at the expense of my own. If the odds were considerably stacked against me, and my action would more than likely cause more harm than good, then I would refrain from taking action until those odds shifted back in my favor again, or until there was a direct threat to me or my family. In the last case, you bet that I would go all out, odds unconsidered.

[74novaman]

This thread brings to mind the signature line of one of our members:

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

It's the attitude of "It's not me or mine so why do I care?" that leads to people walking past a person that has been hit by a car; and not even caring enough to pull the cell phone out of their pocket and call for an ambulance.

To those of you that advocate for doing nothing and being a "good wittiness" I ask you this:

If it was your Wife, daughter, son, father, mother etc. that had a gun shoved in their face and were not in a position to be able to defend themselves. Would you want the CHLer that just happened to be there to say to themselves; "it's not my family member so why should I care?" and be a "good wittiness" to their murder. How would you feel/react to hear that there was someone who could have stopped it but did not? I dare say that most of us would be outraged at the fact.

I agree with you in principle, but not in application.

This guy fired a couple of shots then fled, correct? Should I be running after him, firing shots into the parking lot? Too many variables, too many things that could go wrong. (Cop sees me and assumes I'm on the wrong side, CHL sees me and assumes I'm having a "disagreement" with my bank robbing partner, etc). Now, if the guy turns around, and starts rounding people up as hostages, we might have a different situation.

I don't really compare walking past a person thats been hit by a car to being prudent and judging the situation before taking action.

Take the example of the Marine in the Subway sandwich shop (can't remember where or when). Robbers came in, brandishing guns. Demanded money. He gave them his wallet. When they took him back to the bathroom and got him on his knees execution style, the situation had changed, and he engaged them.

Its a tough situation to judge, but I'd be hard pressed to find justification to begin shooting towards a bank robber at the front of the store. Who knows how many people are behind the banking counter in the parking lot?

[C-dub]

This thread brings to mind the signature line of one of our members:

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

It's the attitude of "It's not me or mine so why do I care?" that leads to people walking past a person that has been hit by a car; and not even caring enough to pull the cell phone out of their pocket and call for an ambulance.

To those of you that advocate for doing nothing and being a "good wittiness" I ask you this:

If it was your Wife, daughter, son, father, mother etc. that had a gun shoved in their face and were not in a position to be able to defend themselves. Would you want the CHLer that just happened to be there to say to themselves; "it's not my family member so why should I care?" and be a "good wittiness" to their murder. How would you feel/react to hear that there was someone who could have stopped it but did not? I dare say that most of us would be outraged at the fact.

All absolutely true, but what many of us are saying here, at least I am, is that it would be better to be sure of the target first. If one does not have a clear picture of the situation, acting with only a partial picture of the situation could end with irrevocable and unfortunate consequences. Also, we are not saying we would do nothing and ignore the situation. Being a good witness is not doing nothing.

[hheremtp]

"Dicion Wrote"
If that someone who did not stop chose to do so because attempting to do so would have put themselves and/or their family at greater risk, then I would understand.
They were looking out for the safety of their loved ones first. I sure as heck wouldn't like it, but I would understand why they did not, and I would not fault them for their (in)action.
Then again, I am a very forgiving person. However, if they did so for nothing but contempt, well, I cannot say on this forum how I would feel.

Dicion, I understand your point and agree with you.

[hheremtp]

This thread brings to mind the signature line of one of our members:

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

It's the attitude of "It's not me or mine so why do I care?" that leads to people walking past a person that has been hit by a car; and not even caring enough to pull the cell phone out of their pocket and call for an ambulance.

To those of you that advocate for doing nothing and being a "good wittiness" I ask you this:

If it was your Wife, daughter, son, father, mother etc. that had a gun shoved in their face and were not in a position to be able to defend themselves. Would you want the CHLer that just happened to be there to say to themselves; "it's not my family member so why should I care?" and be a "good wittiness" to their murder. How would you feel/react to hear that there was someone who could have stopped it but did not? I dare say that most of us would be outraged at the fact.

I agree with you in principle, but not in application.

This guy fired a couple of shots then fled, correct? Should I be running after him, firing shots into the parking lot? Too many variables, too many things that could go wrong. (Cop sees me and assumes I'm on the wrong side, CHL sees me and assumes I'm having a "disagreement" with my bank robbing partner, etc). Now, if the guy turns around, and starts rounding people up as hostages, we might have a different situation.

I don't really compare walking past a person thats been hit by a car to being prudent and judging the situation before taking action.

Take the example of the Marine in the Subway sandwich shop (can't remember where or when). Robbers came in, brandishing guns. Demanded money. He gave them his wallet. When they took him back to the bathroom and got him on his knees execution style, the situation had changed, and he engaged them.

Its a tough situation to judge, but I'd be hard pressed to find justification to begin shooting towards a bank robber at the front of the store. Who knows how many people are behind the banking counter in the parking lot?

74novaman,

I was not advocating charging in blindly to a situation without evaluating ones options and the risks that go along with those options. Nor was I suggesting that you chase the bg around the store and out into the parking lot.

I was not trying to equate walking past someone who has been hit by a car with judging a situation before acting. My comparison is with the "It is not me or some one I care about" attitude that society in general displays.

In your example of the marine, he was the one who defended himself. If that was your dad the the robbers were probably going to execute would you want someone to try and save him if he was unarmed and not able to defend himself? Would you be OK with someone evacuating their family out the side door while your dad was taken to the back and shot, even though that person was armed and in a position to stop them with a minimum of risk to himself or his family?

I agree it is a tough situation to judge. I am not saying that I would just start wildly shooting in the direction of the robber without due regard for the safety of others, however if after analyzing the situation and feeling fairly confident in being able to only hit the BG I would try to save the life of someone.

[hheremtp]

This thread brings to mind the signature line of one of our members:

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

It's the attitude of "It's not me or mine so why do I care?" that leads to people walking past a person that has been hit by a car; and not even caring enough to pull the cell phone out of their pocket and call for an ambulance.

To those of you that advocate for doing nothing and being a "good wittiness" I ask you this:

If it was your Wife, daughter, son, father, mother etc. that had a gun shoved in their face and were not in a position to be able to defend themselves. Would you want the CHLer that just happened to be there to say to themselves; "it's not my family member so why should I care?" and be a "good wittiness" to their murder. How would you feel/react to hear that there was someone who could have stopped it but did not? I dare say that most of us would be outraged at the fact.

All absolutely true, but what many of us are saying here, at least I am, is that it would be better to be sure of the target first. If one does not have a clear picture of the situation, acting with only a partial picture of the situation could end with irrevocable and unfortunate consequences. Also, we are not saying we would do nothing and ignore the situation. Being a good witness is not doing nothing.

C-dub,completely agree with the fact that one needs to judge the situation and act accordingly. I am not trying to imply that being a good witness is doing nothing, but there are times when being a good witness will suffice, and there are times when it will not. Those times that it will not suffice need to be evaluated and actions should be taken in accordance with those evaluations.

[74novaman]

I agree it is a tough situation to judge. I am not saying that I would just start wildly shooting in the direction of the robber without due regard for the safety of others, however if after analyzing the situation and feeling fairly confident in being able to only hit the BG I would try to save the life of someone.

I agree with you. It's real easy to play Monday morning quarterback for me and everyone else. Hopefully I never have to actually make a decision about taking a life, but thinking over these scenarios certainly help to prepare and think of those "what ifs" now, and not in the heat of the moment.

[Excaliber]

My heart says I should fear the indifference of good men, my head says I better have a very good shot on the guy. Also, failure to stop him now will almost certainly lead to worse events later. I wouldn't go looking for trouble, but if I'm there and able to stop it I'd feel a moral obligation to... unless I'm wetting my pants.

Very well said.

There's a great deal of complexity to any such situation - moving people (innocents and bad guys), opaque barriers that you can't see through but that won't stop bullets, potential ricochet surfaces, unidentified other lawful weapon carriers who can mistake you for a BG, etc.

Unless all these variables can be controlled and the circumstances are such that the risks to innocent life from not intervening are greater than the risks from taking direct action, you and everyone else will be more likely to come out in good shape by taking the "good witness" approach rather than starting a gun fight, the outcome of which can never be predicted with certainty beforehand. Money can be replaced - lives can't.

On the other hand, if you have good reason to believe that innocent life is about to be lost, the equation changes and the situation may justify taking high risks to mitigate even greater ones. It'll be your call.

[03Lightningrocks]

Duck?

[03Lightningrocks]

duck, draw, and find cover....

You may want to reconsider this tactic. You draw your weapon and an off duty cop or fellow CHLer may think your one of the bad guys.

[03Lightningrocks]

I have no intention of shooting or killing anyone.

I did not sign up to be an unpaid and uninsured security guard for a bank that does not seem to want security guards.

My only interest at this time is to protect my family and myself from harm.

- JIm

That should be a sticky. It wouldn't hurt for these words to become the Oath one has to take before passing the CHL class. it appears there are many who think a CHL is a batman license. This scares me more than bank robbers.

[Oldgringo]

03Lightningrocks wrote:

...it appears there are many who think a CHL is a batman license...

[C-dub]

"Dicion Wrote"
If that someone who did not stop chose to do so because attempting to do so would have put themselves and/or their family at greater risk, then I would understand.
They were looking out for the safety of their loved ones first. I sure as heck wouldn't like it, but I would understand why they did not, and I would not fault them for their (in)action.
Then again, I am a very forgiving person. However, if they did so for nothing but contempt, well, I cannot say on this forum how I would feel.

Dicion, I understand your point and agree with you.

Ditto. This is the point I was trying to make, but came up short.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

74novaman said:
Take the example of the Marine in the Subway sandwich shop (can't remember where or when). Robbers came in, brandishing guns. Demanded money. He gave them his wallet. When they took him back to the bathroom and got him on his knees execution style, the situation had changed, and he engaged them.

IIRC, this incident happened in Florida and this older Marine
was carrying a 1911 in .45.

Anyone who has a better recall than I is hereby empowered to correct this.

SIA